Manufacturers of portable electronic devices such as digital assistants, mobile (or cell) telephones, handheld telephones, laptop computers and the like have assigned a low priority to the design of battery systems. Consumer involvement with battery systems is low, and competition in the portable electronic device market is fierce. Together, these factors result in more emphasis being given to providing top-level functionality and attractive, overall device design. Moreover, the trend is to ever-increasing miniaturization of portable electronic devices. All of these factors combine to make the design of battery systems a back-end process. The shape of battery compartments is essentially whatever space is left over after accounting for the space needed by top-level functions and the demands of attractive, overall device design.
Because battery systems design is a back-end process, portable electronic devices lack uniform or compatible battery systems. In particular, most devices require dedicated batteries, i.e., batteries manufactured to fit and work with just one type and brand of portable electronic device. Throughout this disclosure, the term “dedicated battery” connotes the custom-manufactured battery or set of batteries intended by the manufacturer to be used in a particular portable electronic device.
The need for dedicated batteries poses several disadvantages to retailers and consumers to the extent batteries need to be replaced. In this connection, it should be noted that even rechargeable batteries have limited lives, because they depend on the use of chemicals that become spent after a certain number of recharge cycles.
First, the need for dedicated batteries means that retailers must stock and display different batteries for virtually every portable electronic device they carry. This can amount to dozens of different battery types needing to be stocked and displayed. The following example illustrates this: A retailer has fifteen regional outlets; each outlet carries four dozen different portable electronic devices; each device requires stock of dedicated replacement batteries; appropriate stock consists of five units per store. To accommodate these needs, the retailer must have inventory of 3,600 replacement batteries. Failing this, the retailer risks customer disappointment by being out of stock on replacement batteries, possibly causing customers to go elsewhere for replacement batteries and, worse, possibly losing more important purchases customers may have made had they stayed at the store, as well as customer good will. On the other hand, stocking such a large quantity of replacement batteries means not only an increased carrying cost of inventory, but also substantially increased exposure to the risk of unsold inventory. In the fast-changing portable electronic device market, where products rapidly become obsolete, this risk is especially great. As far as display is concerned, the disadvantage to retailers is even worse. Shelf space is an extremely valuable resource to retailers. Needing to display dozens of replacement battery SKUs is an appallingly bad use of retail shelf space.
Second, consumers dislike the confusion engendered by the lack of uniformity and compatibility of replacement batteries for portable electronic devices. Finding the right replacement battery for the right portable electronic device is a chore, because these items are not inherently interesting to consumers except insofar as they enable their devices to work. Since the replacement batteries lack distinctive features readily noticeable to consumers, in order to find the right replacement battery, consumers must match battery replacements to model numbers that, too, are invariably in formats lacking inherent distinctiveness or interest to consumers, e.g., “MOTOROLA T300p®” “Try Me”-type packaging, enabling consumers to plug an accessory into his or her device to check for compatibility without purchasing the accessory or breaking the seal of its packaging, is helpful, but (a) it is not really applicable to replacement batteries, and (b) it is relatively expensive and more difficult to maintain for proper shelf discipline and appearance. To the extent consumers rely on sales help to guide them through the maze of replacement battery types, this represents a drain on retailer resources (resulting in higher prices to consumers), as well as resources diverted from the sale of items leading to greater production of revenue.
Third, for all of the reasons listed above, consumers are more likely to err in the purchase of replacement batteries than other products. This results in customer disappointment and inconvenience. To the extent retailers make good these inevitable consumer mistakes, retailers must absorb increased packaging and labor costs to process returns.
Most of the foregoing is also true for Internet retailers and consumers. Though carrying cost and exposure to unsold inventory may be less for Internet retailers than their brick-and-mortar counterparts, consumers have limited patience to scan Web “shelf space,” meaning that a great advantage is to be gained by conserving it for primary goods as opposed to replacement batteries. Regarding opportunity for erroneous purchases, it is equal or greater on the Internet, where sales help is largely absent. Moreover, the cost of processing returns, as well as delay in customer satisfaction, are both greater on the Internet.
A number of different disclosures reveal strategies for providing claimed universal battery systems. However, these disclosures fall short of solving the foregoing problems.
For example, Law et al., U.S. Pat. No. 5,733,674, disclosed a power supply system allowing a user to standardize one or two battery types, and to use these supported types to power portable electronic devices designed to use other, non-supported battery types. However, Law et al. primarily sought to overcome the problem that, due to the lack of uniformity and compatibility among replacement batteries for portable electronic devices, power is likely to be unavailable when needed upon failure of the dedicated battery. Law et al. thus focused on a battery system able to use standard batteries, i.e., AAA, AA, A, B, C, D, 6-volt, 9-volt and 12-volt batteries, that are widely available wherever and whenever the dedicated battery fails. At the time of Law et al.'s disclosure, small, powerful batteries such as Lithium-ion and Lithium-polymer batteries with a voltage rating of 3.6 to 3.7 volts were unavailable. Consequently, Law et al. revealed a complicated, cumbersome battery pack configured to accommodate relatively large batteries. More to the point, Law et al. revealed a battery pack that changes the look and feel of a portable electronic device, rather than just replace the batteries of the device. This is understandable, given the disclosure's emphasis on immediate availability of power after battery failure. However, it does not represent a viable market solution to the problems set forth above, since retailers and consumers are unlikely to accept compromise to the look and feel of portable electronic devices in order to accommodate a bulky, cumbersome alternative battery pack.
As will be discussed below in the Description of the Invention, many other prior art references also describe attempts to supply “universal batteries” or “adaptors using an external add-on” or “adaptors that can be extended to fit into a specific battery compartment”. However, to the extent these disclosures consist of specially designed, adaptable battery compartments for portable electronic devices, such solutions are manufacturer-based, not retailer-based or consumer-based. They do not solve the predominant situation where manufacturers give lowest design priority to battery compartments, and simply fail to provide standard or adaptable battery compartments. To the extent these disclosures comprise means to adapt standard batteries, they either comprise means to adapt standard batteries into other standard batteries (e.g., turning a AAA battery into a AA battery), or unacceptably change the look and feel of the portable electronic device.